Ethics, professional ethics, and bloggers

When is it okay for a journalist to expose a pseudonymous blogger, if ever?

Earlier, I argued that journalists should refrain from outing bloggers unless they have a compelling reason to do so. In that post, I mentioned the unfortunate case of Armando, a former front-page poster at DailyKos who was forced to quit blogging when the National Review Online revealed his real name and the fact that he worked for a law firm that represented Wal-Mart and other large corporate clients. I agree with Janet from Adventures in Ethics and Science--if you blog under a an obvious pseudonym, your readers have to accept the fact that you aren't revealing anything about yourself and take that into account when deciding how much they should trust you.

I argued that Armando was a quasi-legitimate target for outing because his identity was newsworthy. By "newsworthy", I meant that the story was sufficiently interesting that a disinterested editor would publish it as news. What constitutes news varies depending on the publication and its audience. Personally, I don't care what Armando does for a living. The story wasn't newsworthy to me, to most progressive bloggers, or to the average American.

To the readers of the NRO, however, this was a real scoop. NRO writers are hired to dig up this kind of dirt. Note that I'm not holding up Armando's outing as stellar journalism, or even as a clear-cut case of the public's need to know. Like I said, I'm sorry it happened. I don't think the news value of the item outweighed the cost of the disclosure. Mostly, I broached his specific case because it was a hot topic at YearlyKos and the impetus the specific conversation that I wrote about last time.

Some people have argued that the NRO was entitled to out Armando because he failed to disclose conflicts of interest that the public had a right to know about. I disagree. Armando didn't have an obligation to disclose his employment status when he was blogging at DailyKos. As Janet points out at Adventures in Ethics and Science, the readers of an obviously pseudonymous blogger must accept that the writer is withholding all personal info, and weigh his or her statements accordingly.

However, the details of his employment became a matter of legitimate curiosity because Armando was a famous and influential blogger who became a public figure. Let's face it, a writer and political activist who commands an audience larger than that of most daily newspapers is a subject of legitimate public interest.

It is kind of interesting that a Wal-Mart lawyer is blogging for DailyKos, whose annual conference was partly underwritten by a union group passing out "Wake Up Wal-Mart" flyers. It's probably also interesting to some people that I'm a liberal blogger who has written ads for drugs including Viagra, EpiPen, and Avapro. In the comments, Armando asked whether I might be under some obligation to disclose these facts, according to my standards. I don't think I have an obligation to volunteer this information, but I can't demand that nobody ever look into it. If someone wanted to write an article about how interesting or ironic or weird it is that a pharma writer takes time out to write about liberal politics, I couldn't very well complain.

I think the ethical standards are slightly different for bloggers than they are for journalists employed by the established media. (Granted, this issue is complicated by the fact that some MSM outlets employ journalists to run blogs, and the fact that some independent bloggers self-identify as journalists. After all, Armando was outed by the National Review Online.)

Bloggers have a heightened obligation not to out other bloggers. As bloggers and blog-readers, we belong to a community with some shared norms and values. Even more than other media, blogs depend on each other. It's only possible for anyone to attract an audience as a blogger because they belong to a larger interdependent network. Bloggers who force other bloggers out of the blogosphere are depriving readers and fellow bloggers of a member of the community. Gratuitous outing also undermines the trust and cooperation that is essential for worthwhile discussion and political action. So, all things considered, it's fair that we ask each other to go out of our way to respect the privacy of our pseud-using colleagues.

By contrast, a professional journalist has no particular obligation to care about the community standards of the blogosphere or about the well-being of our extended community. Journalists are bound by their own code of professional ethics. These ethics forbid gratuitous or malicious outing, but not much else.

Maybe it's not nice to out a blogger for the sake of a story, but journalists disclose a lot of information that the principles involved would rather not have in the papers. As a news professional, a journalist's first responsibility is to tell stories of interest to his or her readers.

Obviously, there are rules about how journalists may ethically gather information. For example, journalists may not pay for information or deceive their sources. However, if a journalist can use journalistically legitimate means to determine the identity of a blogger, it's up to that reporter to decide whether to go public with that story.

Malice isn't an ethical journalistic motive, and ethical journalists don't abuse their position to just to settle scores. If a story would be accepted by the journalists' peers as newsworthy, I'm prepared to assume good faith on the part of the journalist. Granted, there are a lot of bad journalists and editors out there who have a warped idea of what's important, but I don't necessarily consider those warped priorities to be professionally unethical.

You might argue that professional ethics are a poor substitute for ethics. It's an unfortunate reality that the demands of your employment sometimes conflict with the course of action that would make the world the best place overall. Probably, the world would be a better place if pseudonymous bloggers were almost completely protected, but ultimately, reporters have no special obligation to respect the preferences of the blogosphere in that regard.

Reporters have an obligation not to out people for the hell of it, or for revenge, but they have no obligation to let the welfare of the progressive blogosphere stand in the way of a good story. As bloggers and citizen-journalists, we are held to a higher standard because we are part of a community. We benefit from the blogosphere and we therefore are called upon to make a few small sacrifices for the well-being of our community.

The fact that you're just doing your job doesn't necessarily let you off the hook in the larger moral sense. However, the same principle applies to people who do professionally ethical work for nefarious corporations. If they want a pass because they practice their profession within the law and the norms of the trade, they can't demand that journalists adhere to a higher ethical standard for their work.

Comments

[Doyle Saylor]

Trust based issues are larger than your example. Business structures allow most large businesses to capture information about someone who produces say a blog or what have you.

Hence in one sense you are focused on person-to-person exchanges of information. Whereas the technology supports ubiquitous information about anyone.

Another element would be that people gauge trust in emotional terms. So people want to remain anonymous because of 'fear' of exposure. So one is really asking for clarity about emotion structure and how it works. If someone can express themselves and be protected from harm then whats the point of anonymity?

To sum up, Government and Business really have access to who you are, so your comment is framed by person to person contact not how businesses or government 'know' you. Underlying this query is how emotions structure contacts between people. That is where a realistic solution lies.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

[Dobby]

I more clearly see your point from the earlier post on outing. But I would still counter that point with some of my own:

1) Why is it ethical for journalists to keep their sources anonymous, but not their competition? If anything, I'd say they have more of an incentive to out every source. Their source is providing the basic facts. Bloggers, for the most part, are not relating facts that they have exclusive knowledge of. Personally, I'd more concerned about the motives of an "anonymous source in the Pentagon" saying that war with Iran is planned for July 4th, than an anonymous blogger suggesting that war with Iran might be imminent. Disclaimer: I understand and respect the need to keep sources anonymous, but I think the comparison applies even more so to respecting your competitor's wish to remain anonymous.

2) With respect to: "However, the same principle applies to people who do professionally ethical work for nefarious corporations. If they want a pass because they practice their profession within the law and the norms of the trade, they can't demand that journalists adhere to a higher ethical standard for their work." Reading the comments from the earlier post, I think a lot of people have a pollyanna-ish attitude toward separating work and a private life. Not that I attribute this attitude to Lindsay -- rather, I see her point as seeking to further flesh out the issue. In any event, I would ask (as Armando earlier suggested) who among us has never, ever had a job that didn't in some way have the appearance of selling out our progressive bona fides? Surely we're not going to start disqualifying people who worked for Wal Mart from having a voice, are we? Granted, being a "lawyer for Wal Mart" (see my next point) carries with it a different connotation to some than merely working as a cashier for them. But surely, there are a whole host of professions -- such as medicine or academia -- where your career choices might seem to belie your progressive beliefs. For example, would you hold that a physician who treats Bush is automatically a stone-cold wingnut? Or would you chastise that physician for working at an exclusive private hospital instead of opening a free clinic in Africa?

3) I think many of the people who see some conflict in Armando's "being a lawyer for Wal Mart" have an unfortunate misunderstanding of the legal profession. Let's say, for example, that my law firm once defended Wal Mart in a personal injury suit where someone claimed that they slipped in an aisle at a store? [Disclosure: never happened. This is hypothetical.] If you did an Internet search, you might think (thanks to a journalist, likely) that I "am a lawyer for Wal Mart." But guess what? It could easily have been another lawyer or group of lawyers in my firm that worked on the case, because by no means do I handle every case in my office. By the same token, it could be Wal Mart's insurer that hired my firm -- even though we nominally represent Wal Mart. Does that suddenly make me an enemy of the working man? Would you be surprised to learn that that representation would not disqualify my firm from representing Unions during negotiations (unless those negotiations were with Wal Mart, and, even then, a waiver of conflicts would not be unexpected since the Wal Mart representation had nothing to do with Unions and a "Chinese Wall" could easily be erected to keep lawyers who worked on the slip-and-fall case from working on the Union negotiations)?

[Frederick]

I don't know what AVAPRO is, but EpiPen saves people's lives and Viagra improves people's sex lives, so I don't see you writing ads for those products as being remotely problematic.

[Corey Tomsons]

An excellent couple of posts on this topic, Ms. Beyerstein.

A question: why does Armando not continue blogging for DailyKos? Has it affected his job? Does DailyKos no longer want him? Do liberal-minded readers distrust him now? Is it just bitterness?

(This Canadian wasn't aware of the facts, so wandered over to James">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/06/nro_outs_kos_armando/">James Joyner's posting, which helped me get up to speed.)

Since Armando still posts under his pseudonym, and blogs over at Swords Crossed it seems moot.

As for the outing, even if he might find it embarrassing to have ties to Wallmart, I just don't see his identity to be newsworthy. I can see why the NRO would want to score this point though - they are saying, "See, even a Kos guy thinks we are right about some corporate issues. And boy, are we kicking an anthill."

So it's not newsworthy. It's editorializing. It's rhetoric. Which is pretty much the backbone of the politicial blogosphere.

As for Armando's identity... Big deal. Webs of beliefs are complex, changable things, and there's nothing here to suggest that his job makes his opinions about X, Y and Z any less 'liberal'. Readers of any political stripe should know this.

Apply the 'Jon Stewart Test'. If the laugh-meter doesn't twitch much if a hypothetical guest is called on something, and can't give a good response, it's not that important.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>"...And boy, are we kicking an anthill."

Exactly. They weren't clarifying, they were stirring shit. If there is no conflict of interest in the story he's writing, or if he discloses it, there's no reason to out Armando.

This issue is warped because outing will obviously be used to make ad hominem attacks. Since Richard Clarke, for example, wrote his book criticizing Iraq as a senseless diversion, most of the attacks against him have been empty, ad hominem attacks, claiming that he is motivated either by ego or by money, and ignoring his actual claims.

For another example, do we recall that after John Kerry said "I'm not going to let my patriotism be questioned by the likes of Tom DeLay," Dick Cheney's writers said, "hey, that sounds good," and within months, Dick Cheney was saying that the US wouldn't be questioned by "the likes of" Amnesty International? Using the exact same language! As if Amnesty International wasn't a well-respected human rights organization, with years of solid life-saving work under their belt. In Kerry's case, of course, it could be argued that he was also making an ad hominem attack, but his implication was that Tom DeLay didn't fight in Vietnam or anywhere else, like Kerry did, so he shouldn't comment on Kerry's patriotism. In any case, Cheney's attack on Amnesty International had not even that much substance; he was simply implying "Amnesty International's word can't be trusted," with absolutely no evidence for it. An ad hominem attack.

With pseudonymous writers, the right doesn't have that luxury, and they can't live without it. They outed Armando so that they could attack the people behind DailyKos, instead of engaging their ideas.

[Joe Block]

As a former journalist, a former political blogger who operated under a pseudonym, and a political junkie, there are a few things I want to lend to this conversation. James Joyner said some of it well with:

"Ultimately, I believe Spruiell’s actions here were consistent with the ethical practices of the mainstream press but not those of the online community. Reporters violate people’s privacy all the time and have no compunction about ruining the lives of people, especially powerful and/or famous people, for relatively minor transgressions. On the Internet, where no one has to know you’re a dog, there is a rather high expectation of privacy."

The first sentence here is quite important; everything after up until the last sentence is an unnecessary ad hominem attack on "reporters/the mainstream press," and is both uninformed and unnecessary.
Spruiell’s actions ARE consistent with the ethical practices of the mainstream [sic] press, and as Dobby does in the post above, the ethical practices of the press dictate disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.
"1984" brings up a common misunderstanding in stating: "If there is no conflict of interest in the story he's writing, or if he discloses it, there's no reason to out Armando." This is not an "either/or," it is an "and." Ethical practice in journliasm dictates that full disclosure must be made in reporting a story even with possible conflicts.
The problem here, as Lindsay gets quite close to formulating, is that the Blogosphere and journalism are two different spheres, and as much as bloggers hate to hear it--they are not journalists (in general). Ethical journalists don't editorialize on the stories they research and write. (That's the first thing your editor tells you.) Bloggers, if they even "research" and write a story (usualy, their stories are in part parasitic on mainstream media stories), do indeed editorialize on their own stories. That opens up an entirely new, and different, ethical problem that the Blogosphere seems to want to ignore.
My point here is not to diminish blogging and "elevate" journalism--I've lived and worked in both worlds, and both have their great points and bad points; both have their good apples and bad apples. What I do want to emphasize is that bloggers are treading into journalistic waters, and as such, established journalistic standards have to be followed--such as full disclosure.
I have little doubt that there was some political motivation behind Armando's outing, but in the end he failed to practice good ethical principles and disclose his potential conflicts of interest.
That is a story that needed to be written, perhaps in a private e-mail to Armando, instead of publically. But it had to be writtten.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Thank you Joe, that's thoughtful. Just to clarify, when I say "if there's no conflict of interest," I mean when it's certain that there's no conflict of interest. I completely agree that one should make full disclosure if it even seems there could possibly be a conflict of interest.

Also, I would mention that the Economist, for example, is a very well-regarded newspaper (and as regular readers here know, my favorite), and they do not credit individual writers. However, they would presumably follow full disclosure rules in the case of a possible conflict of interest (and I think I've seen them do so). This would address problems of conflict of interest, without necessarily naming the reporters, whom they prefer not to name.

[Armando]

Joe Block:

You are wrong when you write " but in the end he failed to practice good ethical principles and disclose his potential conflicts of interest."

That is simply a false statement from you. There were not potential or actual conflicts of interest, save on the reporters' privilege question, which I disclosed.

It is important to stick to the facts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[T]he ethical practices of the press dictate disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.... I have little doubt that there was some political motivation behind Armando's outing, but in the end he failed to practice good ethical principles and disclose his potential conflicts of interest.

There was no conflict of interest, or "potential" conflict of interest. No one has identified any situation in which Armando's writings implicated his professional work. The closest I've seen is the suggestion that he was somehow favoring corporations when he observed that antitrust law is judge-made law, but only someone completely ignorant of antitrust law could write this. Read Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, for example, and you will see that they articulate a few very, very fundamental principles pursuant to which courts have been developing the nuts and bolts of antitrust law for the last century.

Lawyers probably think about ethical problems associated with conflicts a whole hell of a lot more than journalists, not least because they know that they can get in trouble with the bar if they screw up. Armando surely was conscious of his ethical obligations when he posted. I know I stay way the hell away from posting about things I'm working on.

Most lawyers also know that if they're going to accuse someone of violating ethical norms, they'd better be able to back it up.

[Michael Suskind]

Ms. Beyerstein, I take exception to your posts of the last few days re blogging, journalism, authenticity, ehics and anonymity.

As to full disclosure: frankly my dear, as to the list of pharmaceutical companies for whom you have written, I don’t give a damn.

As a person who practices analytical philosophy and who has worked in the field of psychology of morals, you have demonstrated in this incident what I call situational ethics. For you the outing of Ther was morally reprehensible, but the outing of A was a juicy bit of news.

But as to the claims you have made in the past to be a journalist, a freelance journalist, or a blogger with “journalistic tendencies” and to enter into the discussion about the outing of an anonymous blogger who is a practicing attorney with this sentence: “I'm sorry that Armando of Kos got outed, but there was a real story there: Wal-Mart lawyer front pager at major liberal blog.” -- here you have crossed the line. This sentence and the values represented are in violation of Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. And this is something any journalist would know.

This is why the story put out by the National Review Online stinks. That you picked it up and ran with it, that stinks too. No reputable journalist would have touched this story. And no reputable journalist did. It’s a non-story and a no-zone. It’s a hit piece.

When a prominent blogger, named, pseudo-named, or anonymous pretends to credentials they do not hold, that is only newsworthy. When they have committed the crime of fraud or impersonation it is newsworthy, and even then only when they have some significant influence or following, been paid, or when they have been hired. Domenech was news. Gannon was news. You are not news. And you are not a journalist. You are a blogger.

One does not become a journalist by hanging out with them and dishing the dirt. One does not become a journalist by keeping an online journal. One does not become a journalist by writing to the National Press Club. One test of whether one is a journalist or not is to be hired as a journalist and to do the work. With editors. To follow best practice, as in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

Journalism is a tough game and one has to earn one’s reputation the hard way…. Most times one attends university and gets a degree in journalism. One starts writing for small newspapers. College newspapers. Trade journals. To get hired by a daily is the first triumph in the career of an aspiring journalist. Usually this means by beginning as a newsroom runner; lucky to be promoted to obituaries and ad copy.

As to your being a liberal, well you’re a young one yet. There are none of the traits of generosity, open-mindedness, fairness and respect for the law and for civil liberties for which liberals are known in your writings on this issue. For you, and for many others, it’s a path of learning the hard way. I hope you will be spared the pain, the loss, the harassment, and the hardship that many have endured so that you might learn, write, and learn to write.

The issue here is not semi-pseudonymous, but semi-professionalism.

Michael Suskind
writer, who has actually worked as a journalist

[gordo]

Frankly, I think the discussion of whether or not Armando violated a code of ethics misses the point. The fact is, his identity was newsworthy, so it was fair game to print it.

1984 points out that the Economist's articles are anonymous; I would add that their columnists write under pseudonyms. But their identities are well-known.

I would add a caveat, though: if the "outing" was intended to make trouble between Armando and his employer, it was unethical. But I think that it could reasonably be expected that he could continue to work in his firm after his "exposure," so I don't think that's a real issue here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The fact is, his identity was newsworthy, so it was fair game to print it.

If there was no ethical conflict, why was his identity newsworthy?

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Thank you gordo, true: Bagehot and Charlemagne, in the Economist, use pseudonyms based on the names of the original editors of the paper. But I don't think they ever attribute a reporter's name to an article. I have never known who wrote which article. I assumed they kept their articles unsigned in order to protect their newsgathering process from just such ad hominem accusations of bias, or outside influence. I'll check: the magazine must have some statement about this.

>If there was no ethical conflict, why was his identity newsworthy?

This is the very meat of the matter: no-one has yet identified a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of one, as Joe stipulates, which would have rendered Armando shady (biased in his reporting, and hence, newsworthy).

[Joe Block]

Armando,

I do appreciate your involvement here in this debate. I have an honest question for you: do you think, with the clients you have represented and the cases you have argued, disclosed from the outset, there would have been an impact on your readers? That your readers would have, perhaps, read your postings differently?
When I was a journalist, I had to disclose any freelance work, and as a freelancer, I felt it was my ethical responsibility to disclose the papers I wrote for.
If you can honestly answer that question with a "no," then I give you a sincere apology. In the end, we have to make hard ethical decisions in journalism, blogging, and the legal profession, and I respect someone who stands by their principles.
You took the risk, and you unfortunately got outed. But you did take the risk.
As for Mr. Suskind, this was a civil conversation.

[Joe Block]

Mr. Suskind,

"Situation ethics" is the set of ideas that an action may be good or bad depending on the situation, as long as what is deemed "good" serves a sufficiently good end.
The question Lindsay--and the others commenting here--are addressing is whether or not that end was "sufficently good."
Your diatribe failed to address that and providided no reasons whatsoever for or against it.

[Armando]

Joe:

It was no secret that I worked for a big law firm that represented Fortune 100 clients.

So the answer is no, it would not have changed how they felt because they knew.

[Cranky Observer]

> One does not become a journalist by hanging out
> with them and dishing the dirt. One does not
> become a journalist by keeping an online journal.
> One does not become a journalist by writing to the
> National Press Club. One test of whether one is a
> journalist or not is to be hired as a journalist
> and to do the work. With editors. To follow best
> practice, as in the Society of Professional
> Journalists Code of Ethics.

This less than two weeks after the New York Times ran a hit piece on Hillary Clinton, tailored to the needs of a particular faction of a political party in opposition to Ms. Clinton, backed by quotes from 30 anonymous "friends", _on the front page_?

Was that journalism? Did that conform to the ethics pledge? Has most of the Iraq, well, call it what you will (personally I would say stenography) published by the NYT and Washington Post since 2002 been "reporting"?

Because from out here, at the consumer end in flyover country, I am having a hard time grasping the distinction that seems to be so powerful to news organ employees who have worked in Washington DC.

Cranky

[togolosh]

Wow, Mr. Suskind, that's a mighty big dick you're waving there. The fact that Beyerstein hasn't climbed the journalistic ladder as it currently exists has absolutely no bearing on her ability to espouse opinions on issues related to blogging and anonymity on a blog she set up, she maintains, and she controls. Her interest in journalism is great, especially given the crappy state of the profession. Having a few more people like her in the club would be great, given that it currently includes such paragons of ethics and integrity as Bill O'Reilly. The pretensions of the fourth estate are pretty much shot to hell. People are beginning to understand that the consumer of news is not the customer - we are the product, and the customer is the advertizer. There may have been a time when journalists could reasonably claim to hold a privileged position as the purveyors of truth, but that time is long gone. Dropping in to bitch-slap a blogger for expressing an opinion is a total waste of time. If you want journalism to represent the things you apparently think it does I suggest you direct your attention to the people who have crapped all over the credibility of the profession, the insiders who have rolled over for big business, political spinmeisters, and every powerful interest group with a line to push. If journalism as a profession wants respect, you'll damn well have to earn it. Start by calling out lies, fabrications and misdirections on the part of the powerful - it's not like they're hard to find. When that's taken care of, we'll convene a blogger ethics panel.

[ahem]

Journalism is a tough game and one has to earn one’s reputation the hard way…. Most times one attends university and gets a degree in journalism.

Did they teach a class in pomposity at your college? Or did you just borrow someone else's lemon and stick it up your rear? Truly you managed, in spite of yourself, to wrap up all the self-aggrandising bullshit of the journamalistic class in one snotty comment.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

"1984" brings up a common misunderstanding in stating: "If there is no conflict of interest in the story he's writing, or if he discloses it, there's no reason to out Armando." This is not an "either/or," it is an "and."

Still trying to figure out how it could possibly be an "and." If there is no conflict of interest, then how could he disclose it? ;) But anyway.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

It still seems cut-and-dried enough, and no need to obscure it: the question is, is there a quid pro quo? Has a reporter's reporting, or a blogger's blogging, been biased based on who he or she has taken money from or is affiliated with? Pseudonymity is only pertinent if there is such a conflict of interest, and then only tangentially, it seems to me: when the reporter or blogger's identity is a tool to uncover malfeasance. Otherwise, why do we need to know?

I don't see such a conflict of interest having taken place with Armando; no-one's shown it. All anyone has shown is: "aha! Armando was paid money! And by Walmart! And he's... a lawyer!" I certainly find Walmart's business practices highly objectionable and damaging to small businesses and even large ones, but if he's not touching these business practices in his reporting, then...?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Michael Suskind, I don't claim to be a journalist. I have done original reporting, but mostly I'm a blogger. As far as I know, Armando never claimed to be a journalist. So, I don't see why he should be held to journalistic disclosure standards.

Re-read my post. I said that we bloggers have a heightened responsibility to protect each other's privacy because we belong to (and benefit from) an interdependent community that could not function without respect for people using pseuds.

The mere fact that someone wants privacy doesn't automatically give them the right to anonymity if they are engaged in the public sphere and leave clues to their identity in the public domain.

I argued that journalists don't have any special responsibility, qua journalists to respect a blogger's preference to remain anonymous.

You've practiced what we call sloppy logic and poor argumentation.

[Joe Block]

1984: I guess what I'm getting at is the narrowness of the formulation. There's still that "possible" conflict of interest hanging out there, and that's why I would argue it's an "and".

So we have: "If there is no conflict of interest in the story he's writing, or if he discloses it, there's no reason to out Armando."

So if there's no conflct of interest, then this means there's no reason to out Armando. Likewise, if there's a conflict of interest, and it's disclosed, there's no reason to out him.
But making it an either/or (conflict of interest or disclosure) misses "possible" conflicts of interest. I think the either/or is too narrow.

But I think we're hitting on semantics here, and we're talking about the same thing.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Gotcha Joe, I'm sure you're right. I have put forward as narrow a formulation as possible, to try to pare things down to the basic principles by which news and opinion are presented to us. Actually, I shouldn't have said the word "reporter," to that end, because reporters have an entirely different canon of ethics and aren't under discussion, whereas, as we see, the canon for bloggers is being written now.

I can envision such a code of ethics for bloggers. However, just as well-funded pundits such as Maggie Gallagher have obscured the truth, and pretend to journalistic prestige, while also obscuring that their sources of funding are the same entities benefiting from their "reportage," such an honor bar will be honored only by the honorable. "Enforcement" of such a code of ethics by outing, even in a well-intentioned way (which Armando's outing does not seem to be) would be at best a scattershot affair, and rarely effective. I wouldn't have a problem if, presuming there really was a conflict of interest and some egregious lies were being bought and paid for, such a blogger was outed. But the only real "enforcement" solution is for the literate public to learn to read in the most conscious and discriminating way possible.

[m.suskind]

Lindsay Beyerstein
I'm a New York journalist and blogger.

I'm a Canadian girl who tends to shy away from confrontations. A couple weeks ago I was taking pictures in a deserted part of Gowanus, Brooklyn.

Suddenly this guy got right up in my face and said, "Hey, bitch."

There was something about his body language that scared the hell out of me.

Luckily, I was so concerned that he wanted to steal my camera that I instinctively stepped even closer, forcing him to step back so that my new telephoto lens wouldn't hit him in the chest.

"Hey, asshole," I snarled.

He turned around and walked away.

For the first time, I felt like a real New Yorker.
I'm Female and 27.
Majikthise
Brooklyn, USA

Lindsay Beyerstein says:
Hi, my name is Lindsay. I'm a 27-year-old freelance journalist living in Brooklyn, New York. I blog about analytic philosophy, liberal politics, and sometimes photography at Majikthise.

My camera is a Canon EOS 20D.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

"I don't claim to be a journalist" But you have done so, and more than once. Right you are, Ms. Beyerstein. Journalist, freelance journalist, or blogger with "journalistic tendencies? It's all the one.

As to the litigator.... there was no conflict of interest; he owed no disclosure and journalists do have a special responsiblity to respect anonymity where no conflict of interest can be demonstrated.

There was no need to know here. It cannot be demonstrated that it served the public interest to connect his online writing to his profession, his firm, and his client list... to out him. Finding this information was nearly impossible before this incident. And what the public has made of this shoddily sourced and pasted together information does not reflect his professional record. It is a disgraceful episode.

Journalists should:

Minimize Harm:
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

. . . * Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy."

This applies to journalists.